Profile of Finndeed

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 612 | Subs: 1

General Information
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/Finndeed


Thread: 1on1 WPB V1.3 (ullumulu Sov vs MR Smith OKW) 14 Nov 2017, 10:56 AM What is the point of this? In: Replays
Thread: DBP Commander Revamp brainstorming13 Nov 2017, 18:30 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Nov 2017, 16:36 PMMr.Smith We might have to replace the offmap strike. It's not that unique, anyway, and the main essence of the bombing run is already accomplished by the stun mines; it is less powerful than the IL-2 bombing strike, and the fact that we want a PTRS-spam-into-offmap meltdown. A static artillery piece would accomplish more at luring the enemy into said ambushing positions than spamming the offmap trying to catch tanks offguard. Please dont remove that bombing strike, i love that thing... In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: DBP Commander Revamp brainstorming13 Nov 2017, 16:17 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Nov 2017, 15:58 PMMr.Smith As Hector pointed out, most of those abilities can be merged into one, opening up slots for new stuff to be added. I just, personally, think it would be interesting to expand the commander to add some depth to it, rather than it being a (buffed) CONSCRIPTS-IN-YOUR-FACE commander. A brute-force Conscripts-only commander will either: - Non-competitive (and thus only played for the troll value), or - Annoying to counter, since it will have a very low skill gap Since our goal with commander revamp is to add competitive commanders, we had better avoid adding annoying commanders. Both ISU doctrines have more of a raw-power element to them (but with combined arms involved), and I don't think a conscript spam army should be able to match that in brute force. B4 can be fixed. Alternatively, there's always ML20. Soviets used a lot of artillery to counter tanks. I'm not opposed to changing the commander, I just quite like the essence of the commander, and would like to keep that essence intact. I have used the commander twice/three with the DBP changes (with cons in various states) and I used it with T1/snipers, and cons being more defensive. The commander doesn't have to be played as a CONS IN YOUR FACE style at all, in fact it is probably more effective if used injunction with t1/t2 anyway... If you are going to keep the off-map bombing run, then adding in more arty on top of that might make the commander more of a 'counter forward base' commander, at least more so than it already is. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: DBP Commander Revamp brainstorming13 Nov 2017, 15:01 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Nov 2017, 13:06 PMMr.Smith Having read some of the suggestions in this thread, I'm more inclined it to rework this doctrine into a "Soviets ambushing German armour" kind-of doctrine. e.g., hulling-down their tanks to camouflage them, having some Conscript squad with crappy camouflage waiting in corners, camouflaging their AT guns, planting mines and, hell, maybe even a B4 to lure the enemy to attack (also, since B4 also has some anti-armour ability). Luckily, tank hunters consists entirely out of unique abilities, which we can change at will without having to jump through hoops. I and quite a few others actually like Dank hunters quite a lot, I personally wouldn't want it totally changed for no other reason that you can. The B4 is an awful unit design-wise because its pretty much impossible to balance properly (much like the SturmTiger). While some camo abilities might be cool, i don't see why this doctrine needs a total overhaul, partially with con changes (which i hope will be toned down again) in the game. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: DBP Commander Revamp brainstorming13 Nov 2017, 13:00 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Nov 2017, 12:28 PMMr.Smith For a faction that has PTRS Penals in T1, live-version Conscripts, and live-version T2, Dank Hunters are rather lacklustre. Thus, the doctrine got most of the votes and now we have to revamp it. Our question, now, becomes whether we can rework the doctrine to make it less of a Conscript-spam doctrine and more of a themed doctrine. Thanks for the quick update! I guess the trouble with this Doc is that - thematically - its hard change it without simply adding cheesy stuff like AT partisans... Maybe make it an Anti-any-vehicle doc and give Maxims AP ammo ability or maybe allow cons or Penals to place AT mines... that way you might encourage or 'allow' for non-con spam strats. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: DBP Commander Revamp brainstorming13 Nov 2017, 10:01 AM I am coming into this late, but, what is wrong with Dank Hunters? In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: KT should have penalties12 Nov 2017, 14:18 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Nov 2017, 13:35 PMvasa1719 Frist of all, why kt have 240 damage, but is-2 adn tiger dont have ? Why KT have so big AOE, he wipes units and AT guns, after brumbar its most wipe unit imo. You whanna buff tiger and is-2 to KT level for wipes ? KT is tied to Tech and you cant have a commander panther or ST with it. Maybe its AoE should be reduced, coz AT guns lol. But Tiger and IS2 are call in untied to tech In: COH2 Balance
Thread: KT should have penalties12 Nov 2017, 13:23 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Nov 2017, 09:44 AMLatch Wrong, I advocated for the comet nerf, I want a light gammon bomb nerf, I want double bren tommies to be fixed, I want to see a change to brace. Playing only 1 faction != being a blind fan boi of said faction (I did play USF for many many hours and play a few OST games now and again but everyone seems to ignore that side of things). If that last statement is your answer to something being broken, then OKW have the best counters to any unit any allied faction can field, right? KT/Jag/(CMD)Panther for any tanks, Obers/Falls for any infantry, LEIG for any indirect, Flame nades for any MG's, Puma for any Light vehicle, Searchlight for any cloaked units. Sounds a little.... much doesn't it, so allies shouldn't get any changes ever as OKW has the best counters to them? According to your player card you have never played OKW, or soviets for that matter. You also have 104 Ost games compared to 1645 games as Brits. You have played a fair amount of USF but, you haven't played either of those factions in over a month. You may advocate for a few fair changed in the past, but that does not make you a fair or balanced source of knowledge or opinion. The KT is a very powerful unit, however my position is that its counters need buff's rather than the KT nerfed. The only faction i think that currently has an unfair time against the KT is USF (only if they dont pick M10's), and they are getting some kind of Jackson buff. One last thing; there is nothing wrong with playing only one faction, I simply don't believe you can provide an unbiased, experienced opinion. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: KT should have penalties12 Nov 2017, 09:33 AM Maybe if you played OKW (or any other faction for that matter) you might have a more well rounded and respectable position on this. As it stands you have a reputation for being a Brit fanboy, only ever arguing for improvements to the Brit factions position. KT is strong, but of all the allied factions, Brits have the best counters to it. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [DBP 1.3] Another dankhunter vs Hooligan. 12 Nov 2017, 09:10 AM Jump back to quoted post11 Nov 2017, 18:52 PM\|GB\| The Hooligan486 Bruh, dis is no dankhuter game. Dis is the good game we had in which my is2 and at guns were screwed up by the one true RNG God You're right, i'm a fool. In: Replays